National Sports Journalism Centerhttp://sportsjournalism.org
America's most comprehensive sports media programTue, 28 Jul 2015 13:06:05 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1Media wants to know all about Chip Kelly, but why?http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/media-wants-to-know-all-about-chip-kelly-but-why/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/media-wants-to-know-all-about-chip-kelly-but-why/#commentsTue, 28 Jul 2015 13:06:05 +0000http://sportsjournalism.org/?p=40736During the recent NFL off-season, few teams were as busy as were the Philadelphia Eagles. Head coach Chip Kelly took over the personnel reins from Howie Roseman and made a variety of moves that included jettisoning stalwarts like running back LeSean McCoy and guard Evan Mathis, and acquiring QB Sam Bradford, back DeMarco Murray and, yes, even Tim Tebow. By the time Kelly was finished, the Eagles’ roster was more than 50 percent different from when the coach took over prior to the 2013 season.

The flurry of action attracted considerable attention, not only because of its projected impact on the team but also for what it said about Kelly and his preferences regarding the construction of a team and the types of players he wanted. It was fascinating stuff, and it all jumped into the rumble seat when Washington Post sports features writer Kent Babb stunned plenty of folks last week with his article that included the revelation that Kelly had been married for seven years back in the 1990s.

Throughout his time as a head coach, both with the Eagles and at Oregon, Kelly has been extremely careful not to reveal anything about his personal life. Even superiors like Oregon AD Mike Bellotti and Kelly’s fellow coaches were kept away from details. You want to talk football? Kelly was in. Anything else? Not going to happen. Because of this behavior, Kelly was the ultimate mystery man. People wondered what his interests were away from the field. They were curious about blocks of time in his life that had produced no detail. And they were convinced he was a bachelor.

During the spring, Philadelphia Magazine sent a reporter to New Hampshire in an attempt to ambush Kelly, his family and friends -– with no real success. Kelly answered his door, reiterated that he wasn’t answering personal questions and sent away the writer.

So, what’s the big fascination with this man, who clearly doesn’t want to share information about himself and more than likely doesn’t have very much interesting to offer anyway? As far as people can tell, Kelly is devoted to football, and everything else is background noise, like the loud music he plays during Eagles practices. The purpose of that is to motivate players but also teach them how to wall off distractions. Kelly’s unwillingness to engage in give-and-take about his personal life is a similar tactic, designed to keep him locked in on his job.

The efforts to unearth this secret Chip Kelly reveal plenty about the media’s desire both to fill the 24/7 news cycle but also provide the illusion that it is giving fans some sort of inside view that they can’t possibly get anywhere else. Sure, it’s interesting that Kelly was married, but it matters not one bit when it comes to whether the Eagles will compete for a Super Bowl title. If Kelly happens to watch “House Hunters International,” that has no bearing on whether he adapts his offense to a league that is catching on to its nuances.

So much of the “inside access” about which outlets boast is carefully-crafted P.R. strategies by players and teams designed to make them look good. Peyton Manning consents to “in-depth” interviews all the time, but what do we really know about the quarterback, other than the fact that he is an extremely good corporate pitchman? He smiles for the camera, provides earnest replies to questions and reveals precious little about anything off the field. We know why he yells, “Omaha!” at the line of scrimmage, but we’re largely clueless about his parenting philosophies, political leanings or feelings on climate change.

The media’s problem with Kelly is that he doesn’t play the game. He isn’t a gregarious interview and doesn’t banter with reporters during press conferences. He isn’t about to take a writer with him to lunch or to some charity function, the better to provide some insight into “who he is.” That doesn’t matter to him, and those who do such things are usually coached how to provide the best possible images, so that any subsequent media coverage will be positive. In some ways, we should thank Kelly for keeping the story on the field. It’s natural for the media to be curious, but the ultimate goal of every football coach is to win games, not to reveal that his favorite ice cream flavor is Cherry Garcia.

The increased scrutiny about Kelly’s personal life isn’t going to make him any more willing to reveal details about himself. It may make him even more careful. In the end, a fun-loving coach who wins five games a season is going to get fired a lot more quickly than an intensely private person who wins 12. Eagles fans may be frustrated that they don’t know more about Kelly, but with Eagles training camp set to start in less than a week, and the season under two months away, it will soon be time to forget about who was married when and learn whether Philadelphia can play winning football.

After 12 years of a highly successful tenure at ESPN, Cowherd leaves on the lowest note possible. He was taken off the air before he could deliver a true good-bye on his last show.

In case you missed it, Cowherd got in all sorts of trouble for uttering this statement Thursday:

“You don’t think a general manager can manage? Like it’s impossible? The game is too complex? I’ve never bought into that, ‘Baseball’s just too complex.’ Really? A third of the sport is from the Dominican Republic.”

Immediately, the politically-incorrect alarm sounded throughout Bristol. It gets quite a workout these days.

The ESPN PR department went to Defcon 1 in anticipation of the inevitable flak storm coming its way. Sure enough, it was considerable with Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association each condemning the remark.

ESPN didn’t waste any time. With Cowherd already out the door and headed for Fox Sports, the network said he was done at ESPN Friday. The statement read:

“Colin Cowherd’s comments over the past two days do not reflect the values of ESPN or our employees. Colin will no longer appear on ESPN.”

It was a relatively easy decision for ESPN. If the guy is leaving anyway, why does the network need to give him air time to essentially plug his next gig?

ESPN, though, did let Cowherd on the air Friday morning, giving him the opportunity to explain himself. Interestingly, the ESPN.com post that said Cowherd was done at the network included a video of his quasi-mea culpa.

Cowherd tried to maintain that his quote was taken out of context. He said his larger point was that you don’t need to be a genius to play baseball. Cowherd maintained the game is infinitely easier to understand than football.

Then Cowherd offered an explanation for the Dominican Republic reference:

“For the record, I used the Dominican Republic because they furnish baseball with so many great players. But they do rank 122nd out of 144 countries in primary education according to the World Economic Forum Global Competitive Report. Nobody says everybody’s anything. And I understand when you mention a specific country, they get offended. I get it. I do. And for that, I feel bad. I do.’’

Indeed, Cowherd admitted that he was “clunky” in his phrasing. He said he shouldn’t have cited one particular country in making his point.

Do you think?

Cowherd tried to pass off his remark by saying occasionally he makes some “cringe-worthy” statements. He certainly does, but his Dominican Republic comment blows past cringe-worthy and right to flat-out stupid.

You can’t be on radio and imply that players from a certain country lack intelligence. It is stereotyping at its worst.

Yes, many Latin American players did not benefit from the quality of education that is available in the United States. However, during my days as a White Sox beat writer for the Chicago Tribune, I encountered many of them who were extremely intelligent. If you think it is easy to come to a new country where you don’t speak the language, try it some time.

Cowherd should have known better. He shouldn’t be upset if he believes his statement got taken out of context. He allowed it to happen.

It cost him the chance to go out at ESPN in a dignified way.

]]>http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/what-a-dumb-way-for-colin-cowherd-to-go-out-at-espn/feed/0All-Star ratings tank shows MLB has work to dohttp://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/all-star-ratings-tank-shows-mlb-has-work-to-do/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/all-star-ratings-tank-shows-mlb-has-work-to-do/#commentsTue, 21 Jul 2015 12:37:42 +0000http://sportsjournalism.org/?p=40730If you are a baseball fan of a certain vintage – and there are those who believe only people of that time period care about the sport anymore – you can remember when the All-Star Game was an unqualified highlight of the season. There was nothing better than watching the pre-game introductions, when living legends mingled with stars on the rise and assorted one-offs, giving fans the chance to see the game’s best in one place, for one night.

Even better, fans had the chance to see uniforms of teams that never made it through one of the few national TV windows. I’ll never forget being at the 1976 All-Star Game in Philadelphia and marveling at the White Sox’ all-black threads and Cleveland’s blueberry costumes. It was a magical night, and it really mattered. Those who supported National League teams rooted for the NL and vice versa.

At its peak, the Midsummer Classic pulled TV ratings in the mid-20s, with that ’76 game’s bringing in a 27.1 number, second highest since 1967. (The ’70 game had a 28.5 rating and a whopping 54 share.) It was a big deal, and no other sports league could come close, just as none could top baseball’s overall popularity.

Although the All-Star Game continues to top the ratings among major sports exhibitions, its popularity has fallen considerably. This season’s game pulled a meager 6.6 rating, the lowest ever and the fourth time in the last five years the number has been lower than seven. This isn’t just an aberration that can be blamed on the All-Star Game. You may remember that last year’s World Series attracted an 8.2 number, the second-worst of all time.

There are contributing factors that have nothing to do with the sport itself, such as the continued splintering of entertainment options, especially on television. But baseball deserves plenty of the blame for its continued fall from favor among fans. From its increasingly languid pace – despite this year’s meager improvements, due to some speed-up measures – to a lack of the kinds of established, sure-fire Hall of Famers who populated rosters in the 1970s and ‘80s, baseball has lost national popularity.

Local interest remains high, as teams’ recent giant contracts with regional sportsnets demonstrate. Last year, Padres baseball outdrew every other prime-time option, and San Diego finished 17 games out of first in the NL West. No wonder the team signed a $1 billion-plus deal in 2012. Last January, the Phillies agreed to a 25-year, $2.5 billion deal with Comcast. The money is there. The national interest is not.

Just take a look at the top 10 markets for this year’s All-Star Game: Kansas City, Cincinnati (host city), St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Dayton, Detroit, Sacramento, Minneapolis, Columbus, San Diego. Notice anything interesting? How about no sign of New York, L.A., Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia or Atlanta? The big boys sat this one out, choosing to watch NCIS re-runs or catch up on other shows on demand or through Netflix.

There can be no denying the game itself has lost plenty of its allure. First off, there is no longer any great desire on either side to win, even if former commissioner Bud Selig set it up so that the representative of the winning league would have home-field advantage in the World Series. That reward doesn’t appeal to most fans, since their favorite clubs aren’t going to reach the Fall Classic. And the idea of league pride – for players and fans – has become a concept as quaint as players’ remaining with one franchise for their entire careers. Few people are waving an NL or AL flag anymore.

Then there are the participants. This year’s game set a record for players under 25 years old, and though two of them were L.A.’s Mike Trout and Bryce Harper of the Nationals, many were anonymous. In fact, the vast majority of fans would have trouble naming half of the starters for either league. While the NFL and NBA have done great jobs marketing their individual stars, baseball has yet to create the same connection between its best players and the fans. Responsibility for part of that comes from the sport’s lack of big names. Sure, Andrew McCutcheon, Clayton Kershaw and Miguel Cabrera are outstanding performers, but none has a national persona that rivals those of top players in the other leagues.

If baseball wants its signature events to draw the kind of attention that they once did, or at least stay out of the “worst ever” ratings category, it must find a way to market itself as more than the national pastime. A January 2014 Harris Poll revealed that 35 percent of fans consider the NFL their favorite sport, while 14 percent choose baseball. That’s a drop of nine percent since 1985. Baseball is now three percentage points ahead of college football, and that’s not great.

Baseball attendance remains strong, at more than 30,000 per game, and is actually up from last season. Regional TV ratings are booming, as are the contracts bestowed on teams by broadcast outlets. But the MLB has a definite national problem, and if it doesn’t find a way to create a general interest in the sport, it can expect ratings in July and October to continue their downward spiral.

]]>http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/all-star-ratings-tank-shows-mlb-has-work-to-do/feed/0Big Ten negotiations should be fun, but conference must get it righthttp://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/big-ten-negotiations-should-be-fun-but-conference-must-get-it-right/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/big-ten-negotiations-should-be-fun-but-conference-must-get-it-right/#commentsTue, 14 Jul 2015 15:57:23 +0000http://sportsjournalism.org/?p=40725Jim Delany has waited patiently. The Big Ten commissioner sat quietly as the Pac-12 created its own network – without a partner. He watched as the ACC created a media deal that was almost poach-proof, in the wake of Maryland’s defection to a certain Rust Belt league. He had to have smiled as the SEC inked a 15-year, $2.25 billion mother lode contract with ESPN.

Now, it is his turn.

This fall and winter, Delany and his conference lieutenants will begin the process of negotiating new media rights deals with potential partners. The current package, which expires after the 2016-17 basketball season, is with ESPN and CBS. The Big Ten Network contract, which runs through 2031-32, is with Fox.

The conference is in a unique situation, since it is the last of the major five leagues to ink a deal this decade. The others have driven up the price, and now the Big Ten will benefit from batting cleanup. The league will no doubt enjoy its advantageous decision, but it’s imperative it makes the right moves, because a lot of change is ahead over the next decade.

Much of what has been written so far has dealt with whether the Big Ten should give up its affiliation with ESPN/ABC for Fox. After all, the conference and Fox are partners in BTN, and joining forces more completely would allow for greater synergy. It would also be a boost for Fox Sports 1, which has precious little big-time content and is struggling to mount a significant challenge to the dug-in ESPN machine.

Fox could sell the Big Ten on the power of exclusivity and how partnering with the network would allow for the airing of more games in more desirable time slots. The league wouldn’t have to jockey for position with the other power hitters and would have essentially its own national channels, along with its own network. That’s a pretty good combination.

That is, until you realize that Big East basketball games on Fox Sports 1 have been drawing subterranean ratings. Part of that is due to the lack of national brand recognition of some of the schools. (Try as they might, Butler, Xavier and Creighton aren’t exactly going to draw big attention in the western or southern U.S.) But part of that is due to the lack of exposure for Fox Sports 1 itself. Many fans have yet to discover the channel, despite its existence for nearly two years. If the Big Ten puts a significant amount of its inventory on such an anonymous outlet, the results could be catastrophic for schools’ recruiting efforts.

While the conference debates its TV homes (the smart money is on a return to ESPN and CBS), there is more important work to be done, work that will require creativity and foresight. The next decade will feature an even greater move of programming to video on demand outlets and other media types. For instance, many might scoff at Twitter’s bid to “broadcast” an NFL game, but the mere attempt demonstrates the long-term vision of the social media platform to be more than just a 140-character moment in time. It’s possible Netflix might get into the sports business by offering a package that combines historical footage with highlights. On Oct. 25, Yahoo will stream the Bills-Jaguars game from London. That’s something that was virtually unimaginable even two years ago. If that kind of progress has been made, just imagine what might be coming next.

The Snapchat Game of the Week?

Don’t laugh. The continued growth of social media sites is forcing traditional content providers to consider methods of partnering with the new delivery systems. As the young outlets grow, and allegiances are formed, new ideas are being hatched that could well have significant influence in five years or so. Anticipating the influence of what is coming next will be vital to the Big Ten’s negotiations, especially since reaching future recruiting targets could depend on how well the conference is aligned with new products, which are likely to appeal to younger users.

The obvious short-term windfall will be significant. The Big Ten already pays out more to its member schools than any other league, including the SEC, which just completed its most recent negotiations last summer. One estimate has the windfall at $45 million/school. No wonder Maryland and Rutgers wanted in.

The money is big, but the opportunity to partner with emerging media companies and new technologies is just as important. The Big Ten wants to bring its message to as broad an audience as possible, the better to drive recruiting efforts – on and off the field. Building as broad a coalition as possible will allow that and must extend beyond traditional TV outlets. These are indeed high times for Delany and his conference, but the coming months are extremely important in terms of whether the league is able to connect with the future or merely profit from a short-term bonanza.

]]>http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/big-ten-negotiations-should-be-fun-but-conference-must-get-it-right/feed/0Will Jordan Spieth move the ratings like Woods?http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/will-jordan-spieth-move-the-ratings-like-woods/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/will-jordan-spieth-move-the-ratings-like-woods/#commentsMon, 13 Jul 2015 17:40:51 +0000http://sportsjournalism.org/?p=40723Just when everyone was saying there wouldn’t be another Tiger Woods, here comes a player who actually is outperforming Woods at a similar age.

Jordan Spieth won his first PGA Tour event at the age of 19; Woods was 20 when he secured victory No. 1.

Spieth already has collected two majors at 21. After winning the 1997 Masters at 21, it took Woods more than two years before his second major victory at 23: the 1999 PGA Championship at Medinah.

Spieth also is the youngest player to win the first two majors in a season. Woods was 26 when he achieved the feat in 2002.

All in all, a pretty good start for Mr. Spieth.

Now the focus will be squarely on Spieth, not Woods, when he tries to continue his Grand Slam bid at this week’s British Open. And the tournament will be at St. Andrews, the venerable course where Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus and Woods staked their claims to greatness.

Spieth clearly is the talk of golf, especially after winning again at the John Deere Classic Sunday. But will he be the talk of all sports? Can he be another Woods when it comes to spiking the ratings?

If there has been one difference thus far, it is that the hype for young Tiger was much more than for young Jordan.

Few athletes ever received more hoopla prior to turning pro than Woods. After winning an unprecedented three straight U.S. Amateurs, he delivered immediately on his vast promise with his epic victory in the ’97 Masters.

The final round pulled a 14.1 rating on CBS, which remains the all-time high for any golf telecast. Part of it was due to the history that was made on that day. Woods became the first person of color to win the Masters.

But it was more than that. Woods, with his length off the tee and cool precision with the putter, displayed a game that hadn’t been seen before in golf. He overpowered courses, forcing Augusta National, among others, to “Tiger-proof” their designs.

Much like Michael Jordan, Woods transcended the game, pulling in non-traditional golf viewers to see his amazing show. He became must-watch TV. At the peak of his powers, Woods’ presence could double the ratings for a tournament.

Now with Woods in decline, and the ratings along with it, Spieth’s emergence couldn’t be more timely for golf.

The final round of Spieth’s wire-to-wire victory in the Masters did a 8.8 rating on CBS, up 23 percent from 2014. At the U.S. Open, more than 11.2 million viewers tuned in to Fox down the stretch to see Spieth birdie the 18th hole and runner-up Dustin Johnson finish with his fatal three-putt.

Those are strong numbers to be sure, but the buzz isn’t nearly the same for Spieth as it was for Woods at 21. Unlike Woods, the hype machine wasn’t turned on for Spieth leading up to him turning pro. He definitely was a top prospect after playing one year at Texas, but he wasn’t a sure thing to be the next big thing.

As a result, Spieth somewhat snuck up on people in winning two straight majors at such a young age. It takes time for people to catch on.

“Tiger was a known prodigy since he was 3 years old,” said ESPN’s Mike Tirico. “He was a can’t-miss project who didn’t miss. He and LeBron James lived up to expectations when so many others didn’t.

“Jordan has been terrific since he was a kid, but that didn’t catch the imagination of fans nationally. He has to capture people like my mom.”

Hopefully, he will, because Spieth is a quality young man. In the latest edition of Golf Digest, Jaime Diaz writes:

“It’s instructive that unlike all those who have been liked a lot, it appears that nobody doesn’t like Spieth….Like all game-changers, Spieth benefits from timing. Just as (Arnold) Palme was a welcome change from the grim excellence of Ben Hogan, so is Spieth a respite from the distant reign of Woods.”

“My favorite thing about Jordan Spieth is that he is who we think he is,” said ESPN’s Paul Azinger. “He’s just a good guy who’s got his act together. He’s an old head on a young body.”

It remains to be seen the extent of the “Jordan Factor” in the ratings this week at the British Open. ESPN, though, figures to get a significant bump if Spieth is in contention on Sunday.

The big winner, though, could be CBS if Spieth wins the British Open and goes into the PGA Championship in August with a chance to win the Grand Slam. People will take notice.

Golf definitely is in a state of transition. The Chicago Tribune’s Teddy Greenstein noted that on an ESPN-British Open telecast last week, it took 42 minutes before Woods’ name was mentioned.

“Congratulations!” Tirico told reporters.

Woods hasn’t disappeared completely. The ratings will soar if he ever can put together four good rounds in a major again.

However, the focus has changed to Spieth and Rory McIlroy. The two young guns have won the last four majors. It is a shame that McIlroy will have to miss the British with an injury, but he and Spieth figure to have many duels in majors in upcoming years.

Hank Gola, the veteran golf writer for the New York Daily News wrote after Spieth’s U.S. Open victory:

“It didn’t seem as though we’d ever say this but golf has gone beyond Tiger Woods. It would be tremendous if he can find his form again and get into the mix, win another tournament, maybe a major. The pipe dream? Taking a run at Jack Nicklaus’ record.

“But the thing is, it doesn’t need to happen for golf to be great.”

Indeed, Spieth is the new face of golf. If he keeps winning, non-traditional golf fans will tune in, making the networks very happy.

]]>http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/will-jordan-spieth-move-the-ratings-like-woods/feed/0ESPN’s Olbermann could be next victim of network’s NFL partnershiphttp://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/espns-olbermann-could-be-next-victim-of-networks-nfl-partnership/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/espns-olbermann-could-be-next-victim-of-networks-nfl-partnership/#commentsTue, 07 Jul 2015 13:28:10 +0000http://sportsjournalism.org/?p=40720July stands as the only (relatively) quiet month in the NFL calendar. Teams ready for the coming excitement of training camp and the long trudge to the Super Bowl by dispatching personnel to vacation destinations, the better to refresh them for the hard work ahead. Sure, there are sundry reports from the police blotter, and the league occasionally steps forward with some P.E.D. suspensions, but things are generally under control, allowing other sports to step to the forefront.

But it’s impossible to keep everything relating to the league at a lower decibel level. Last week, Awful Announcing (yes, I love that site) reported that the pending contract negotiations between ESPN and Keith Olbermann could include a mandate from the network that the outspoken host remove the “Commentary” section from his daily program. The reason? It seems neither ESPN nor the NFL was too happy when Olbermann called for league commissioner Roger Goodell’s resignation following last year’s ham-handed approach to the Ray Rice domestic violence incident.

Throughout his tempestuous relationship with ESPN, Olbermann has done plenty to anger his employers, to the point where one former colleague said that Olbermann doesn’t just “burn bridges; he napalms them.” That behavior led to Olbermann’s first banishment from Bristol. Should he balk at removing his ability to comment on all things sports during his half-hour window, Olbermann could be leaving Connecticut for a second time. This time, the departure would be less due to his acquired-taste personality (some would say it’s more abrasive than anything else) and more because he had upset the NFL, something we have learned is a no-no – Hello, Bill Simmons – in the ESPN world.

Olbermann’s criticism of Goodell put at risk ESPN’s relationship with the sporting leviathan. The network depends heavily not only on its ability to broadcast Monday Night Football but also for the unfettered access to highlights, archival footage and statistical information that its $1.9 billion annual payout assures. It’s interesting that an entity spending so much money can be bullied by its supplier (usually, it’s the other way around), but since the NFL is the Big Prize in TV sports, it makes the rules and always has another suitor or four waiting to make a bid for its content. If ESPN loses its NFL link, it will surrender thousands of hours of programming each year, something it cannot afford.

So, Olbermann will likely be given an ultimatum: Surrender the Commentary or look for other employment. The feeling here is that he will walk away, since Olbermann’s journalistic instincts won’t suffer a diluted approach to his work. The larger issue is whether anybody beyond a few journalism analysts will pay any attention to the latest example of how the media continues to cower at the feet of the very institutions it is supposed to be covering. It’s unlikely that anyone will notice or care, no matter how many people shout about the danger of close business relationships between outlets and leagues.

We live in the world of highlights and contrived “access,” so much so that those viewing or reading are less interested in the substance of a report or presentation than in its stylized presentation. Media consumers no longer crave real reporting; rather, they want nuggets of information surrounded by softball interviews and music-video style segments that entertain and promote, rather than inform and analyze. Fans don’t want to know that their heroes are vulnerable or prone to mistakes. They want to celebrate the sports they love, and media outlets are working hard in tandem with the leagues to provide what is desired. If the NFL can influence ESPN’s personnel decisions, as it appears to have done in the cases of Simmons and Olbermann, just imagine the influence it has on everyday news. What isn’t being reported? What is the league telling its partners it must avoid – and what propaganda is being delivered to us masquerading as newsworthy content?

These are dangerous times in the sports media world. Alliances built on huge sums of money have created situations in which the motives of supposed news organizations are questioned. Do they exist to report or to serve at the whims of those with whom they have allied themselves? With each ensuing Simmons and Olbermann episode, the answer to that question becomes more and more clear.

There are still plenty of media representatives doing great work. They dig and report the news and try to avoid entanglements that will prevent them from telling the truth, rather than a burnished version of it. The problem is that with the growing list of companies partnering with leagues, conferences and schools, it’s harder to find independent voices. The result is a continued blending of news and public relations into an “infotainment” stew that favors fluff over meat and conditions fans to accept what those being “covered” prefer that they see.

Things may be quiet on the NFL surface, but below, the efforts continue to polish the league’s image and make sure that people like Olbermann keep their mouths closed.

]]>http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/espns-olbermann-could-be-next-victim-of-networks-nfl-partnership/feed/0SI’s Richard Deitsch discusses significance of Outside The Lines in its 25th anniversaryhttp://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/sis-richard-deitsch-discusses-significance-of-outside-the-lines-in-its-25th-anniversary/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/sis-richard-deitsch-discusses-significance-of-outside-the-lines-in-its-25th-anniversary/#commentsMon, 06 Jul 2015 15:48:42 +0000http://sportsjournalism.org/?p=40706On Monday, Sports Illustrated senior editor Richard Deitsch credited ESPN for its commitment to investigative journalism and noted the significance of ESPN program, Outside The Lines. OTL debuted on May 7, 1990 and to commemorate the 25th year anniversary, ESPN will air a primetime special on Tuesday, July 7.

Deitsch spoke with OTL staff members to discuss the importance of OTL and investigative journalism in today’s media landscape.

“I think the biggest reason that OTL is important in today’s sports media landscape is that it is really the only daily sports journalism show on TV right now, Monday-Friday and on Sunday morning. It’s a show that is never afraid to tackle a topic, whether it be sexual assault, sexual abuse, concussions, youth sports, gay athletes, performance enhancing drugs, racial issues, hurtful nicknames of pro football teams, etc. OTL has been a leader in many of these areas for the past 25 years and I expect the show to continue to be a leader going forward. If there is an important topic in the sports world, you can almost be guaranteed that OTL will cover it in some way.” – David Brofsky, senior coordinating producer

]]>http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/sis-richard-deitsch-discusses-significance-of-outside-the-lines-in-its-25th-anniversary/feed/0Abby Wambach sacrificed for World Cup victoryhttp://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/abby-wambach-sacrificed-for-world-cup-victory/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/abby-wambach-sacrificed-for-world-cup-victory/#commentsMon, 06 Jul 2015 15:32:43 +0000http://sportsjournalism.org/?p=40704After scoring three goals in the first 16 minutes of the World Cup Finals on Sunday, United States midfielder Carli Lloyd was the focus of most media attention. But after the United States captured its first World Cup title since 1999 with a 5-2 over Japan, The New York Times sports columnist Juliet Macur chose to describe the importance of U.S. forward Abby Wambach instead.

Wambach has been a member of the U.S. National Team since 2001 and has scored the most international goals in history, but at age 35, her career is winding down. The 2015 World Cup marked Wambach’s fourth World Cup appearance as a member of the U.S. team and she desperately wanted the title. But as Macur described, Wambach’s most significant contribution to the U.S. team was not on the field, but the sacrifices she made for her teammates in order to win.

But you know what makes Wambach such a tremendous athlete, and what has lifted her above the sport and made her an icon? It’s the fact that she has scored more international goals than anyone in history but was fine with her teammates stealing her spotlight. She showed grace and great character in coming to grips with being a substitute.

She did score the United States’ only goal in its final group game against Nigeria. But for most of this tournament, Wambach has been at the fringes of the matches, and most likely on the edge of her seat on the bench, those blue eyes peeking in.

]]>http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/abby-wambach-sacrificed-for-world-cup-victory/feed/0ESPN teams up with Marvel for short film serieshttp://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/espn-teams-up-with-marvel-for-short-film-series/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/espn-teams-up-with-marvel-for-short-film-series/#commentsThu, 02 Jul 2015 15:06:09 +0000http://sportsjournalism.org/?p=40708ESPN announced in a press release that ESPN Films has partnered with Marvel Entertainment to produce a short film series titled, “1 of 1 – Origins.” Each short film will focus on a single professional athlete – and will describe their rise to greatness in ESPN’s documentary form – but with original Marvel art, design and creative animation.

The series premieres on July 10, with the first film focused on San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, and with future installments featuring athletes like Brandi Chastain, Bryce Harper and Dwight Howard.

“I could not ask for more collaborative and creative teams to work with than those at ESPN Films and Marvel,” said Drath. “It was truly amazing to work with such incredible athletes for this series and to learn of their moments of self-discovery.”

]]>http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/espn-teams-up-with-marvel-for-short-film-series/feed/0TV watchers are moving not-so-gently down the streamhttp://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/tv-watchers-are-moving-not-so-gently-down-the-stream/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/tv-watchers-are-moving-not-so-gently-down-the-stream/#commentsTue, 30 Jun 2015 12:12:38 +0000http://sportsjournalism.org/?p=40696Now that the NBA season has completed, and ESPN has once again proven its allegiance to the league by valuing drama over information during the draft, we head into something of a sports wasteland for the next five or six weeks. Actually, the entire television landscape is rather barren, what with summer replacement series trying to convince us that they are more interesting than barbecuing and time at the beach, and a slew of events involving non-major sports filling the athletic schedule.

Sure, there is Shark Week, and AMC will show “The Godfather” trilogy 10-15 times throughout July. (That isn’t a bad thing.) That isn’t enough to keep people tuned in, or at least attract the kind of robust numbers needed to make executives swoon.

Since this has been going on for decades, people in the TV world shouldn’t be too upset. What doesn’t have that kind of history is the recent phenomenon of Americans’ turning away from the tube all together. A recent article on the website Awful Announcing discussed the results of a study by DigitalSmiths, which revealed that 8.2 percent of those surveyed cut satellite or television service last year. That’s up 1.3 percent from 2013. A whopping 45.2 percent of those still connected plan on reducing the number of channels they purchase, in order to save money, take advantage of the growing number of streaming opportunities and to tailor their channel lineups to their – rather than providers’ – preferences.

Anyone who has or spends time with teenagers or young adults knows that the days of appointment TV are long gone. Beyond that is a growing disdain for broadcast options in general. Sure, Comedy Central, FX, FXX and a few other channels catch the millennial eye, but the new favorites of this generation include Netflix, HBO Go and YouTube. They offer quality programming on demand and aren’t cluttered with commercials – or reruns. The watch lineup for a 21-year old is likely to include many shows that couldn’t be found with even the most bloated cable package. Last week, The New York Times Magazine featured an article that broke down the watch patterns of Comedy Central patrons, and the smallest number of views (by far) came from conventional TV. The change is underway, and as the DigitalSmiths survey shows, it’s moving quickly.

The sporting world is hardly immune to this, even though its reliance on the power of live events remains strong. For instance, according to a February report by Nielsen, ESPN is now in 94.4 million households, down from 100 mil a couple years ago. That’s an 81.1 percent penetration rate, hardly universal. Although ESPN remains the largest and most popular sports cable option by far, its diminishing numbers could cause problems down the road, as declining subscriber and advertising revenues could prevent it from paying Brobdingnagian rights fees for live events. That could force leagues to take less money (unlikely) or look for other outlets.

While Netflix isn’t about to get into the live sports business – yet – Awful Announcing’s Ken Fang wrote Monday that it might be time for the streaming service to experiment with documentaries and archived sports programming. The more content it can make available, the more Netflix will be able to generate in fees. And should the race to the streaming service continue, it could become a viable option for advertisers. That could create a path to the airing of actual sporting events.

If the NFL thinks it makes sense to air a game on Yahoo! this year – even if it is Buffalo vs. Jacksonville – the concept of Netflix’s showing live sports cannot be too far from birth. We may be a long way from a big events’ airing on the service, but it won’t be long before some forward-thinking league or contest figures that the best way to reach millennials is not to load up on broadcast outlets but to experiment with alternate forms of video distribution. There is certainly enough inventory available to create a package that would be available on Netflix. And since users are comfortable with paying a la carte, adding a couple dollars to the monthly fee for access to some professional or college sports won’t seem too onerous.

Meanwhile, old guard outlets like ESPN will continue to fight against the unbundling of TV options, not a good idea, since Americans are losing appetite for scrolling through dozens of channels in which they have no interest, in the hopes of finding something they want to watch. According to an article in last week’s Sports Illustrated, there are now more millennials than there are baby boomers. And their tastes and habits are going to start driving business decisions in just about every sector, especially entertainment.

This is happening quickly, and it will be interesting to see how leagues and conferences react to it all. As younger viewers disconnect, it will be up to content providers to discover ways to reach them – or risk losing them forever. That’s also true in the world of sports, where old paradigms may be soon threatened and those capable of adapting will be the sole survivors.